Design Opportunities and Challenges in the Development of Vertical

Lift Planetary Aerial Vehicles

Larry A. Young
Robert T.N. Chen
Edwin W. Aiken
Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division
Geoffrey A. Briggs
Center for Mars Exploration
NASA Ames Research Center
Moffett Field, CA

Abstract
The next few years promise a unique convergence of NASA aeronautics and space
programs.
NASA planetary science missions are becoming increasingly more
sophisticated. This will ultimately culminate, in part, in the development of planetary
aerial vehicles (PAVs). Early work in this area has principally focused on conceptual
design of fixed-wing aircraft configurations for Mars exploration. However, autonomous
vertical lift vehicles hold considerable potential for supporting planetary science and
exploration missions. This paper discusses in a general sense the technical opportunities
and challenges in developing autonomous vertical lift PAVs. Through this discussion a
vision for using PAVs in planetary exploration is presented.

The Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division -in collaboration with the Center for Mars
Exploration -- at NASA Ames has been
performing initial conceptual design
studies over the past year of a Martian
autonomous rotorcraft for planetary
exploration and science missions (fig. 1).
Initial results have been quite promising.
As a result of this early work, the
authors have generalized their thoughts
regarding the utility of rotorcraft, VTOL
vehicles, and hybrid airships for Mars
exploration and planetary science
missions as a whole.

Introduction
Manned and robotic exploration of the
Solar system planets would be greatly
enhanced through the development and
use of robotic aerial vehicles. Since the
1970s a number of Mars (fixed-wing)
Airplane concepts have been proposed
for Mars exploration.

Presented
at the American
Helicopter
Society
International Vertical Lift Aircraft Design Specialists
Meeting, San Francisco, CA, January 19-21, 2000.
Copyright 2000 by the American Helicopter Society, Inc.
All rights reserved.

Why vertical lift vehicles for planetary

exploration? For the same reason that
these vehicles are such flexible aerial
platforms for terrestrial exploration and
transportation: the ability to hover and
fly at low-speeds and to take-off and
land at unprepared remote sites.
Further, autonomous vertical lift
planetary aerial vehicles (PAVs) would
have
the
following
specific
advantages/capabilities for planetary
exploration:

Hover and low-speed flight

capability would enable detailed
and panoramic survey of remote
sites;

Vertical lift configurations would

enable remote-site sample return
to lander platforms, and/or
precision placement of scientific
probes;

Soft landing capability for vehicle

reuse (i.e. lander refueling and
multiple sorties) and remote-site
monitoring;

Hover/soft landing are good failsafe

hold
modes
for
autonomous operation of PAVs;

Vertical lift PAVs would provide

greater range and speed than a
surface rover while performing
detailed surveys;

Vertical lift PAVs would provide

greater resolution of surface
details, or
observation
of
atmospheric phenomena, than an
orbiter;

Vertical
provide

hazardous terrain than a lander or

rover.
Further, even if a planetary aerial vehicle
is not a vertical lift aircraft or rotorcraft,
there
are
several
rotary-wing
technologies that will nonetheless have a
profound
influence
on
PAV
development.
These technologies
include: high-efficiency propeller or
proprotor design; precision guidance,
navigation and control at low altitudes
and near-terrain obstacles; adaptive
(inner-loop) flight control; autonomous
systems work based on vertical lift
vehicle applications; high-frequency
openand
closed-loop
smart
structures/actuators.

Figure 1 Vertical Lift Planetary Aerial

Vehicles as Astronaut Agents

The objective of this paper is to inspire

the vertical flight research community to
consider and to embrace the concept of
vertical lift planetary aerial vehicles and
to participate
in their ultimate
development and use.

lift vehicles would

greater access to

Titan rotary-wing aircraft? Application

of vertical lift and rotary-wing
technologies to the development of
planetary aerial vehicles would be
extremely beneficial to the United States
long-term planetary exploration effort.

State of the Art in Planetary Science

Over the past forty years planetary
science has made incredible advances by
means of robotic missions carried out by
spacecraft from our planet.
Fly-by
probes,
orbiters,
landers,
hardprobes/penetrators, rovers, and aerostats
have been launched, successfully
completed their missions, and provided
us invaluable data to expand our
understanding of the solar system (fig.
2). Today, planetary science is poised
to make further advances using robotic
planetary aerial vehicles to conduct
scientific investigations.
The development or evolution of
planetary aerial vehicles will likely
parallel the evolution of terrestrial flying
vehicles: first will come balloons,
followed by airships and/or fixed-wing
aircraft, and finally rotary-wing or
vertical lift vehicles.
Balloons, or
aerostats, have already been flown in
Venus upper atmosphere (jointly by the
Soviet Union and France) on the Vega 1
and 2 missions in December 1984. Soon
other types of PAVs will be developed,
launched, and used to conduct planetary
science missions.

Fig. 2 Our Solar System

The development of PAVs will pose

new and exciting challenges for
aeronauticalengineers.

This paper poses -- and makes an initial

start in addressing -- the question of the
feasibility of vertical lift PAVs, as well
as the more general question of the
applicability of rotary-wing technologies
to planetary science and exploration.
Table 1 is a summary of the key surface
atmospheric properties for various
planets in our solar system. This table
has been divided into three parts: a
description of terrestrial type planets
and moons; outer, or gas-giant, planets;

Opportunities
As noted earlier, work is being pursued
at the Ames Research Centers
Army/NASA Rotorcraft Division on a
Martian autonomous rotorcraft.
Why
not, though, as a next step, a Venusian
VTOL? Or a Jovian flyer? Or, even, a

planets and moons with tenuous, or

nonexistent, atmospheres. Later in the
paper this information will be used to
examine the general aerodynamic
attributes of vertical lift, and other,
planetary vehicles.

Mean
Surface
Atmos.
Density
(kg/m3)

Atmos.
Gases

Terrestrial
Type
Planets
&
Moons
Venus

6052

8.87

Earth

6371

9.82

Mars

3390

3.71

Titan
(Saturn
moon)

2575

1.354

735.3 9.21x10

69,200

25.0

165

100,000

0.173

Saturn

57,400

10.6

135

100,000

0.196

Uranus

25,250

8.94

76

100,000

0.365

Neptune 24,500

11.2

72

100,000

0.438

H2 86%
He 13%
H2 96%
He 3%
H2 83%
He 15%
H2 80%
He 19%

Planets
&
Moons
with
Tenuous
Atmospheres

Table 1 Summary of Planetary

Descriptions (Ref. 1)
Mean Gravity! Mean Mean
Radius (m/s2) Surface Surface
(km)
Atmos. Atmos.
Temp. Pressure
(o K) (Pa)

Jupiter

64.79

CO2
96%
N2 3.5%
288.2 101,300
1.23
N2 78%
O2 21%
214
636
1.55x10-2 CO2
95%
N2 2.7%
Ar 1.6%
O2 0.1%
94
149,526
5.55 N2 6598%
Ar<25
%
CH4 210%

Gas
Giant
Planets

!
Mean values noted for planet radii and
gravity to account for the oblateness
of the
planet.
Mars surface temperature,
pressure,
and
density
varies
significantly
spatially
and
temporally;
surface
temperature
range
of
140-300oK;
surface
pressure
636240
Pa.
and condensation
Seasonal CO2 sublimation
at the polar
caps
(particularly
at the
southern
polar cap) is the chief reason for
the
atmospheric
pressure
and
density
variations.

All characteristics
noted for the outer, gasgiant,
planets
in the Solar system
are
defined at effective (mean) planetary
radii
corresponding to 1bar atmospheric pressure.

Mercury

2438

3.70

Pluto
The
Moon

1151
1737

0.645
1.62

100- <10-12
700
40 ~58x10-6
120-390

--

--

---

N2
--

Additional data related to key

atmospheric properties can be found, for
example, in Ref. 1-5.
Despite the
considerable amount of data related to
planetary atmospheres, much more data
can, and must, be discovered to enable
the development and general application
of PAVs.
In establishing the feasibility of vertical
lift (and other) PAVs, it is not sufficient
to merely question whether or not flight
in extraterrestrial atmospheres
is
theoretically possible.
It is also
mandatory that one can clearly define
general planetary science goals and
opportunities that vertical lift PAV
designs and missions can meet. Table 2
summarizes a partial list of planetary
science goals/opportunities. Table 3 is a
corresponding list of how vertical lift, or
rotary-wing,
technologies
could
contribute to these planetary science
opportunities.

weaknesses in the ice crust (initially

identified from radar-mapping from an
orbiter) for siting of icebots and/or
other drilling equipment to break through
to hypothetical underlying ocean, where
possibly hydrobots could be released
and explore

Table 2 Planetary Science

Opportunities (A Partial List Only)
Science/Exploration Opportunities
Mars

Titan

Venus

Jupiter

Europa

Search for water or past signs of water

(characterize global distribution)
Search for life or evidence of past life
Understand the atmospheric and
geological evolution of Mars; perform
comparative analyses of the Mars
planetary evolutionary process with the
other terrestrial-type planets in our solar
system
Survey for resources that would expand
exploration capability and support for an
extended human presence on Mars
Search for life or the precursor
biochemical components of life
Perform atmospheric science studies to
understand the unique nature of the Titan
atmosphere (a high density/pressure
atmosphere)
Survey for chemical resources/volatiles
that could enable in-situ propellant and
fuel production at the lander site;
propellant could be used for sample
return missions to Earth, expanded
surveys of the Saturnian moons
including expanded vertical lift planetary
aerial vehicle surveys of Titan
Correlate space-based cartographic and
inferred geological data with detailed
surveys in targeted areas using vertical
lift PAVs.
Acquire adequate data to understand the
fundamental atmospheric and geological
evolutionary processes that led our
sister planet to be radically different
from Earth
Determine if planetary-scale greenhouse effects can be halted and/or
reversed

The Moon

Continue to acquire data (particularly

through deep-core drilling) to understand
the formation process of the Moon
Continue/expand upon search for water
ice at the Moon poles; existence of this
resource will be critical to the extent and
magnitude of lunar exploration
Perform a comprehensive mineralogical
survey for the Moon to identify potential
resources required for a sustained
human presence
Use the Moon as a staging area for
continued exploration of the solar system
(and through far-side observatories) and
the Universe

Asteroids

Perform cartography and geo-chemical

analyses to understand planetesimal
formation, and, through extrapolation,
planetary/solar system formation.
Perform geological and mineralogical
survey of asteroids (particularly nearEarth asteroids) and determine if
economically valid resources could be
extracted from asteroids and transported
to Earth or manned space facilities

Table 3 Contributions of Vertical Lift

Technology to Planetary Science
Potential Vertical Lift Contribution

Understand the atmospheric

science/physics of outer, gas-giant
planets
Use outer planet atmospheric data as a
comparative benchmark database to
refine atmospheric and meteorology
modeling potentially leading to new
insights and improvements in
meteorology and climatology predictions
for Earth
Understand the planetary-scale
thermodynamics of outer, gas-giant
planets where a net positive heat
generation is maintained
Search for life or the precursor
biochemical components of life
Survey for chemical resources/volatiles
for expanded mission/science potential
Acquire data to understand the geophysics
underlaying the existence and
preservation of a hypothetical Europan
sub-surface ocean
Examine fault lines or other potential

Venus, Mars,
Titan

Vertical lift vehicles (aided by, or solely

using, rotors as the means of propulsion)
can be developed and flown to support
both proof-of-concept, extended robotic
science missions, and in the case of
Mars support human exploration of the
planet. Almost all of vertical lift and/or
rotary-wing multi-discipline knowledge
and technologies would have application
to vehicle development and mission
execution for planetary science missions
to these planets/moons.

Jupiter,
Saturn,
Uranus,
Neptune

Vertical lift capability is not required for

any PAVs to be used for scientific
investigations of the gas-giant, outer solar
system, planets. However, rotary-wing
technologies such as rotor aeromechanics
(for propeller design), etc., would be
applicable for vehicle development for
these planets.

Mercury,
Pluto, the

The tenuous or nonexistent atmospheres of

these planets, moons, and other planetary

Moon,
Europa, and
other moons,
asteroids, and
comets

bodies prohibit the application of rotarywing propulsion. Instead, vehicles

employing chemical or electrical
propulsion (rockets or ion-engines) will be
used for ballistic and/or low-level flight
and take-off and landing to explore these
planetary bodies. However, even under
these circumstances, the rotorcraft and
vertical lift technical communities can
contribute. In particular, guidance,
navigation, and control technologies
developed for hover and nap of the earth
low-speed flight can still be successfully
applied to rocket/ion-engine propulsion
vehicles for low-level flight/exploration.

each of the planets), and the ideal-gas

law.
Improved
thermodynamic
equations of state can be used for refined
analyses
of
the
atmospheric
characteristics of the various planets in
the solar system.

Neptune

Bodies

Uranus

Planetary

Considerable enthusiasm and support

from the American public could be
generated for both the demonstration of and the science returned from extraterrestrial atmospheric flight.

Saturn
Jupiter
Titan
Mars
Earth
Venus
0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

Speed of Sound (m/sec)

General Aerodynamic Attributes for

Extraterrestrial Aerial Flight

Fig. 3 Speed of Sound for Different

Planetary Atmospheres

A comparative first-order aerodynamic

analysis will now be presented for
vertical lift (and other) PAVs. Analysis
results for terrestrial aerial vehicles will
be used as baselines for the vehicles
sized for other planetary bodies. This
comparative analysis will be a first step
towards understanding the opportunities
and challenges of the vertical lift
planetary aerial design.

Neptune

Bodies

Uranus
Saturn

Planetary

Jupiter
Titan
Mars
Earth

Figures 3 and 4 are approximate

estimates of the speed of sound and
kinematic viscosity for various different
planetary bodies in the solar system.
The estimates were made based on data
from Table 1, Ref. 1, real gas data from
reference 6, and using the MaxwellRayleigh power law, (m~m0(T/T0)n,
where m is dynamic viscosity and m0,
T0, and n are real gas constants for the
primary atmospheric constituent for

Venus
1E-07

0.000001

0.00001

0.0001

Kinematic

0.001

Viscosity

0.01

0.1

(m^2/sec)

Fig. 4 Estimates of Kinematic

Viscosity for Different Planetary
Atmospheres

Figures 5a-d is a set of bar charts for

different rotors sized (using simple rotor

momentum theory analysis) for hover in

different planetary surface atmospheres,
assuming constant solidity (s=0.1),
mean lift coefficient (CL=0.4), and tip
mach number (Mtip=0.7). Results for
three different vertical lift planetary
aerial vehicle masses (10, 25, and 50 kg)
are shown in the figures.

Bodies

Earth

Planetary

Mars

Titan

Venus

10

100

1000

10000

100000

Disk Loading (N/m^2)

50kg
25kg
PAV Mass = 10kg

Mars

PAV Mass = 50kg

PAV Mass = 25kg
PAV Mass = 10kg

Venus

Rotor Radius (m)

Bodies

Titan

Fig. 5c Disk Loading of Single Main

Rotors

Earth

Planetary

Bodies

Earth

Planetary

Mars

Titan

Venus

Fig. 5a Single Main Rotor Radius Sized

for Hover

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

Ideal Hover Power (Watts)

PAV Mass = 50kg

Fig. 5d Ideal Hover Power of Single

Main Rotors in Different Planetary
Atmospheres

Mars
PAV Mass = 25kg

Bodies

Earth

Planetary

Four-bladed rotor,
Mass = 10kg

Titan

PAV

Figures 5a-d are presented

for
comparative
purposes
only;
no
optimization of the single main rotors
has been performed. Figure 5a shows
the range of rotor sizes required for
hover on each of the four planetary
bodies (Mars, Venus, Titan, and Earth)
where it might be beneficial to have
vertical lift capability. Figure 5b shows
the relative extremes of blade tip
Reynolds number for rotors on various

Venus

1000000

2000000

3000000

4000000

Reynolds Number

Fig. 5b -- Rotor Blade Tip Reynolds

Number

planets. Figure 5c shows the range of

rotor disk loading for vertical lift PAVs.
Figure 5d shows the ideal rotor hover
power required.

reference parameters and methodologies

underlying the sizing exercise of Fig. 6a-e
are summarized in Table 4.

As shown in Fig. 5c, a rotary-wing

vertical lift planetary aerial vehicle for
exploration of the Venusian surface
would have disk loading approaching
that of terrestrial marine screw
propellers. Alternatively, a Mars rotor
disk loading would be similar to humanpowered helicopter rotors (Ref. 7). In
both cases, though, no data exist for
compressible flow at these density and
low Reynolds number ranges. In the
case of the Venus rotor, given the
unrealistically high disk loading, a tip
Mach number of 0.7 is much too high for
flight near the surface of Venus. A more
realistic tip Mach number range would
likely be Mtip<0.2. The disk loading for
Titan, though high, appears to be
reasonable. For both Venus and the
Titan, it is likely that ducted, multi-rotor
vertical lift vehicles would be the best
design configurations to pursue.

Table 4 -- Key Parameters/Methodology

for Fixed-Wing PAV Sizing Comparison
Parameter

Sizing Comparison Reference

Value/Methodology

Vmin Mach #
Vmax Mach #
Maximum mean
wing lift
coefficient
Maximum mean
rotor lift
coefficient
Wing aspect
ratio, AR

0.1
0.2
0.8

Induced drag

Wing Profile
Drag

0.4

5 (moderate aspect ratio was selected to

reflect the difficulties for wing fold and
deployment from atmospheric entry
aeroshell)
CDi = CL2/epAR
where e~1-0.0066AR for AR<20
(based on linear curve fit of Oswald
efficiency factors cited in Ref. 8,9 for
straight wings)
CD=CDmin(1+CL2)
And
CDmin=2Cf(1 + 2(t/c) + 60(t/c)4)
Where Reynolds number corrections
were made using Cf=1.328/Re1/2 for
Re<Rec=5105 or Cf=0.044/Re1/61700/Re
for Re>Rec

Next, consider
planetary
bodies
(particularly the outer, gas-giant planets)
where the use of fixed-wing, propeller
driven, PAVs to conduct planetary
science
missions
is
sensible.
Extraterrestrial propeller design can be
significantly leveraged by rotary-wing
technology and analysis tools. Figures
6a-e compare wing planform area,
propeller size, disk loading, and power
required for airplane-mode forward-fight
cruise in various planetary atmospheres.

Airframe
parasite drag

Wing Planform
Tail download
for trimmed
flight
Vehicle Cruise
Altitude

Propeller/Rotor
Power

For illustrative purposes only, several

vehicle design parameters have been fixed
with respect to each propeller/planet
design point and are not intended to
represent optimal values.
The key

Assuming a reference value of t/c=0.12

for the wing airfoil section thickness
ratio being used, Ref. 10.
fe=0.0004m2/3 for a fixed-wing PAV
fuselage and fe=0.003m2/3 for a clean
helicopter fuselage, where fe is
equivalent flat plate area and m is the
vehicle mass (by the method noted in
Ref. 10,11, and 12)
Unswept rectangular wing
10%

Low-level flight is assumed where mean

surface values (for all the planetary
bodies) for pressure, density, viscosity,
and speed of sound are used
Estimates made based on method
outlined in reference 13

Figure 6a compares fixed-wing planform

area for various PAVs in airplane-mode
forward-flight cruise.
The wing
planform area was sized for the design
point condition of CL = 0.8 at the Vmin
Mach number = 0.1.

Neptune
Uranus
Saturn
J upiter
Titan

Neptune

Mars

Uranus
50 kg
25 kg
P AV Mass = 10 kg

Saturn

50kg
Mass = 25 kg
Vehicle Mass = 10 kg

Earth
0. E+00 1.E+06 2.E+06 3. E+06 4. E+06 5.E+06 6. E+06 7. E+06 8.E+06

J upiter

Reynolds Nu mber

Titan

Fig. 6b -- Wing Reynolds Number

Mars

Earth

0.01

0.1

10

Figure 6b shows the wing Reynolds

number (based on mean chord length) for
the various sized PAVs. Only the Mars
PAV clearly has a wing Reynolds
number in the laminar flow range. The
wing profile drag coefficient is, as a
consequence, generally higher for the
Mars fixed-wing PAV than for the
vehicles sized for the other planetary
bodies. The lack of data (particularly for
the compressible flow region) for low
Reynolds number airfoils, in the range of
the Mars PAV airfoils, is one of the
design challenges for developing an aerial
vehicle for Mars exploration.

100

Wing Area (m^2)

Fig. 6a Wing Planform Area for FixedWing PAVs for Various Planets

Collectively, PAVs for the outer, gasgiant planets require roughly the same
general range of wing planform area.
Further, the outer, gas-giant PAVs
compare fairly well to the wing area
required for equivalent terrestrial fixedwing aircraft (when sizing is based on
vehicle mass, not weight). The Titan and
Mars fixed-wing aerial vehicles are at
opposite extremes with respect to wing
planform area requirements.

Neptune
Uranus

Neptune
50kg
Mas s = 25 kg
Vehicle Mas s = 10 kg

Saturn

U ranus

Jupiter

Saturn

Titan

Jupiter

Mars

Titan

Earth

50 kg
Mass = 25 kg
PAV Mass = 10 kg

Mars
0

0.2

0.4

0. 6

0.8

Earth

Rotor Radius (m)

20000

25000

Figure 6e compares the propeller shaft

power cruise requirements for the
various propeller-driven, fixed-wing
PAVs. These estimates are based on the
methodology of Ref. 13. The Mars and
Titan propeller power requirements are
much lower than the power requirements
for the outer, gas-giant PAVs. Providing
adequate power for propulsion for the
gas-giant PAVs will be a key design
challenge for their development.
A Venus fixed-wing, propeller-driven
planetary aerial vehicle is not shown in
Fig. 6a-e since the parasite drag will be
very large for a Venus PAV that flies
close to the planets surface. Such a
vehicle would have to be substantially
slower than the other vehicles. (A Venus
PAV would have a forward-flight speed
of approximately M=0.05 -- versus
M=0.2 as assumed for the other vehicles
-- in order to have roughly the same
overall vehicle drag.)

Neptune
Uranus
Saturn
Jupiter
Ti tan
M ars
E arth
10 0

15000

Fig. 6e Power Estimate for PAV

Propellers

Figure 6c-d compare the rotor radius and

disk loading of fixed-wing PAV
propellers sized for different planetary
atmospheres.
Collectively, the
terrestrial baseline and the outer, gasgiant planet propellers compare closely
to each other in terms of size and disk
loading. The Mars fixed-wing PAV
propeller is much larger, and has a
significantly lower disk loading, than the
other vehicles. The propeller/rotor and
wing size required for Mars PAVs will
pose significant weight and deployment
designchallenges.

10

10000

Propeller Power Estim ate (Watts)

Fig. 6c Propeller Sizing Comparison

for Various Planets

5000

1000

Di sk Loading (N/ m^2)

Vertical lift planetary aerial vehicles do

not make sense for gas-giant planets, as

Fig. 6d Propeller Disk Loading

10

they do not have surfaces to take-off and

land from, or hover over, in the
conventional sense.
Propeller-driven
fixed-wing PAVs, on the other hand, do
make sense. Because of the high power
requirements for higher speeds, the
maximum cruise speed has been limited
in this sizing comparison to a relatively
low Mach number of 0.2.
One
consequence of limiting the maximum
cruise speed to this relatively low Mach
number is that the PAV will not be able
to make headway against the very strong
Jovian (and likely other gas-giant)
tailwinds; therefore the vehicle flightpath will be partially dependent upon
the upper atmospheric wind-patterns.

wing technologies. Even rocket, or ionengine, ballistic hoppers can benefit

from guidance, navigation, and control
work developed by the vertical lift and
rotorcraft communities.
Further
autonomous
system
technology
developed for terrestrial vertical lift
aircraft can be directly applied to
hoppers that would be used for
planetary bodies with tenuous or
nonexistent atmospheres.

Martian Aviators
As noted earlier, balloons/aerostats (Ref.
19) and Mars Airplanes (Refs. 20-24)
have been proposed for some time for
Mars exploration. Only recently have
vertical
lift
configurations
been
considered.

A quick review of Fig. 6a-e reveals that

vehicles sized for the outer, gas-giant
planets will likely look similar to small,
moderate aspect ratio, terrestrial fixedwing unmanned air vehicles (UAVs),
with respect to overall propeller size,
wing area, and operating Reynolds
numbers range.
Packaging and
deployment of Titan and outer, gas-giant
PAVs will be somewhat more tractable
than a similar vehicle for Mars and,
yet, power requirements for a Mars
PAV will be significantly lower than the
other planetary bodies.

In the near future, vertical lift PAVs will

likely focus on Mars - robotic and
manned exploration (fig. 7). This
section briefly discusses Mars mission
options, and provides some thoughts on
a notional early robotic mission.
Assume for the moment a Mars Mission
landing date of 2005 or 2007. Assume
further that a Martian Autonomous
Rotorcraft for Science (MARS) will be
deployed from a lander on the surface.
The mission for such a Martian
autonomous rotorcraft
would
be
threefold:
a
proof-of-concept
demonstration for rotary-wing flight in
the Martian atmosphere, a limited aerial
survey (with photographic image
telemetry) while in flight, and a
successful soft-landing on the Martian
surface.

Considering more exotic vehicles (from

the rotorcraft community perspective),
one
can
envision
rotary-wing
technologies being applied to other types
of planetary aerial vehicles, including
hybrid airships (Refs. 14-15) and
chemical, or electrical, propulsion
ballistic hoppers
(Refs. 16-18).
Hybrid airships, particularly concepts
relying on propellers for not only
primary propulsion but low-speed
handling/flight as well, can directly
benefit from the application of rotary-

11

condensation and sublimation which

occurs on a seasonal basis). Given the
thin,
carbon-dioxide-based Martian
atmosphere, developing a rotorcraft
design that can fly in that planetary
environment will be very challenging.
Despite the low density of the Martian
atmosphere, rarefaction effects likely
need not be considered in Mars PAV
aerodynamic analysis for low-level flight
for Reynolds numbers Re>104M2, M
being the Mach number (Ref. 10).
Fig. 7 - Mars

Maximum vehicle mass would be quite

small, ~10-20 kg. Minimum sustained
controlled-flight duration would be for a
short period of time approximately a
minimum of a half-hour flight would
likely be required. Range would be of
secondary concern. Ideally, range should
be greater than 10 km. Maximum cruise
altitude would be quite low
approximately 100 to 300 meters. The
vehicle would have to be capable of
demonstrating vertical lift capability and, therefore, should be capable of (at
minimum) soft-landing on Martian
surface after controlled-flight has been
demonstrated.
Fig. 8 Notional Martian Tiltrotor
(Some Assembly Required)

The Martian atmosphere is 95% CO2

with the remaining 5% comprised of N2
and other trace gases (see Table 1).
Further, the atmosphere of Mars is
extremely cold and thin (approximately
1/100th of Earths sea-level atmospheric
density). This is roughly equivalent to
flying an aerial vehicle at an altitude of
100,000 feet in the Earths atmosphere.
Further, a variation of approximately
20% for density and pressure will be
seen on Mars for both changes in surface
elevation and planetary atmospheric
mass (a consequence of polar CO2

A Mars tiltrotor is a particularly

attractive configuration option (fig. 8).
A
tiltrotor
represents
a
good
compromise between hover performance
and cruise range/endurance both
attributes are extremely important for
Mars exploration. Figures 9a-d present
some initial sizing/performance estimates
for a small (10 kg) autonomous Mars
tiltrotor configuration.
One of the

12

biggest issues for the Mars tiltrotor

configuration is that the deployment of a
tiltrotor from even the surface of Mars
will be fairly complicated, and will
require astronaut-assisted assembly or an
autonomous assembly process on the
lander platform.

Rotor Shaft Power (Watts)

600

Design Point
400

200

0
0.4

4.5

0.5

0.6

Mars Tiltrotor Radii (m)

0.7

0.8

Hover Figure of Merit

4
Mtip = 0.5
0.6
0.7

3.5
3

Fig. 9b Rotor Shaft Power (per rotor)

Design Point

2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

Rotor Mean Lift Coefficient

Fig. 9a Mars Tiltrotor Rotor Radii Size

Estimates (Vehicle Mass = 10 kg)

Figure 9a shows the trend of rotor size

as a function of rotor mean lift
coefficient and tip Mach number. A
notional rotor design point of Mtip =0.7
and CL =0.4 is noted on the figure. The
resulting rotors are quite large and will
necessitate special considerations in
stowage (in the aeroshell entry vehicle)
and deployment on the Martian surface.
This result points to the necessity of
folding and/or telescoping rotor blades.

Figure 9b shows rotor shaft power

versus figure of merit (FM).
From a
practical standpoint, because of the
compressible low-Reynolds number
regime in which the Mars tiltrotor blades
must operate, a low figure of merit was
intentionally chosen as a design point
(0.6 versus the FM~0.8 noted for
terrestrial tiltrotors).

25

Wing Planform Area (m^2)

End of Conversion
Mach # = 0.1
Mach # = 0.15

20

Mach # = 0.2
D esign Point

15

10

0
0.4

0. 6

0.8

1.2

Maximum Wing Lift Coefficient

Fig. 9c Mars Tiltrotor Wing Area Size

Estimates (Vehicle Mass = 10 kg)

13

0.9

Figure 9c shows wing planform area as a

function of maximum wing lift coefficient
and the end of conversion Mach number
(airspeed at which the wing, versus the
rotors, carries all the vehicle lift). Three
considerations constrain the wing sizing
effort: first, rotors will have a maximum
advance ratio to which the rotors can fly
edgewise in helicopter-mode (because of
high vibratory loads); second, wing
maximum lift coefficient is significantly
lower for wing/control surfaces in the
low Reynolds number regime; third,
aeroelastic stability (particularly for
ultra-light
weight
structures)
considerations will limit the maximum
cruise speed below that of conventional
terrestrial tiltrotors. Unfortunately, it is
beyond the scope of this paper to
address these design considerations in
other than a qualitative sense.
The
design point noted in Fig. 9c reflects
these design considerations/constraints.

In particular, lower parasite drag (as

compared to terrestrial aircraft) might
make it possible to design more efficient
Mars tiltrotor configurations.
As shown in figure 9d, a Mars tiltrotor
using
hydrazine
piston
engine
propulsion will be a short- to mediumrange planetary aerial vehicle. In order to
improve vehicle range, in addition to
improving L/D efficiency of the aircraft,
the propulsion system SFC must be
improved.
This will necessitate
developing alternate propulsion systems.

600
L /D = 6

L/D = 8

L /D = 10

L/D = 12

Range (Km)

500

400

300

200

Figure 9d shows preliminary range

estimates (using the Breguet range
equation) of the 10 kg Mars tiltrotor
configuration, assuming propulsion
provided by an Akkerman hydrazine
piston engine (Ref. 25), for various
vehicle L/Ds and fuel fractions. The
specific fuel consumption
(SFC)
constant used for the Akkerman
hydrazine piston engine is 1.0 kg/MJ.
An
Akkerman
engine
is
a
monopropellent-based
propulsion
system and, therefore, should operate
satisfactorily in the carbon-dioxidedominated atmosphere of Mars. It has
been successfully used on high-altitude,
long endurance terrestrial experimental
aircraft. A typical L/D for conventional
terrestrial tiltrotor aircraft XV-15 and
V-22 is L/D~7 (Refs. 26-27). Higher
L/D values might be possible for an
optimized Mars tiltrotor configuration.

100

0
0.15

0 .2

0 .25

0.3

0.35

0.4

0.45

Fuel Fraction

Fig. 9d Breguet Range Estimates for a

Mars Tiltrotor

Throughout this early Mars tiltrotor

conceptual/preliminary design work, a
one parameter vehicle weight equation
was used to estimate the Mars tiltrotor
empty weight mass: m = 0.4S3/2, where
S is the wing planform area. This one
parameter empty weight equation was
derived using empirical tiltrotor and
fixed-wing high altitude long endurance
(HALE) vehicle weight data. Estimates
using this empty weight equation for the
10 kg Mars tiltrotor yield a usable fuel
weight fraction of approximately 25%.

14

Further preliminary design analysis of

the Mars tiltrotor concept must be
substantiated by detailed component
weight estimates.

3000

Lander Mass

2500

Mars E ntry Mass

E arth Launch Mass

Mass Estimates (kg)

2000

Another Martian autonomous rotorcraft

concept being explored a configuration
more conducive to an early Mission date
(because of packaging, assembly, and
deployment considerations) is a coaxial
helicopter configuration. This coaxial
Martian helicopter should have folded
and telescoping rotor blades to minimize
volume during launch, transit, and
entry/landing on the Martian surface.
The primary disadvantage of a coaxial
helicopter is that it would be a slower
vehicle with considerably less range than
a
Mars
tiltrotor
configuration.
Nonetheless, a coaxial Mars helicopter
would make a good vehicle configuration
for early proof-of-concept robotic
missions to Mars.

1500

1000

500

0
0

10

20

30

40

50

60

PAV & Aux. Equip Mass(kg)

Fig. 10 Estimates of Lander, Entry, &

Launch Mass

Challenges
Autonomous vertical lift PAVs will be
high-risk and high-payoff development
ventures. Though an impressive and
ever-expanding -- amount of data exists
for the planetary bodies in our solar
system, nonetheless, these data are
barely adequate (at best) for the
purposes of designing and building
PAVs. Such vehicles will need to be
highly adaptive (from a controls and
structures
perspective),
have
conservative performance margins, and
will require high degrees of mission/flight
autonomy to adequately deal with
corresponding levels of uncertainty in
the mission and flight environment. A
list of these and other technical
challenges are summarized below.

Finally, as a point of reference, the

following derivatives are applicable to
Mars robotic planetary missions: 1 kg of
air vehicle adds 21.5 kg to the lander
which adds 13 kg to the entry mass
which adds 20 kg to the launch mass.
These incremental weight derivatives are
derived from the 1998 Mars Pathfinder
rover/lander mission (see Fig. 10). The
Mars Pathfinder 16 kg rover and
auxiliary
equipment
resulted
in
16*(1+21.5+13+20) = 890 kg of launch
mass. Mars Mission costs can be
approximated using a fixed launch vehicle
cost of $70M and an incremental
Mission development/flight cost of
$180,000 per kg of launch mass (in 1997
USD). Cost numbers based on Mars
Pathfinder: $70M plus 890kg*$180,000
per kg = $230M.

Rotor Aeromechanics
Inadequate planetary atmospheric
data and/or modeling may exist to
design vehicles with
required
performance.

15

 No empirical data exist for lowReynolds number, compressible flow,

so aerodynamic predictions may be
inaccurate. Correspondingly, no data
exist for high tip Mach number, high
disk-loading rotor designs required for
exploration of Venus and Titan. It is
especially critical to acquire airfoil and
rotor
performance
databases
consistent with these planetary
environment extremes to validate
design and analysis tools.
Achieving aeroelastic stability for
rotors
and/or wings will be
challenging, given ultra-light weight
structures required for most PAV
configurations.
A single PAV platform design is
unlikely to address all conceivable
mission requirements for any one
given planet. A mixed fleet of vehicles
is likely needed to comprehensive
planetary science missions.
Vertical lift PAVs are not likely to be
all-weather vehicles. Season, location,
existence of atmospheric disturbances
of a certain magnitude, and even time
of day may dictate whether a PAV
mission can be initiated or not. For
example, as noted earlier, Mars
undergoes seasonal extremes of
atmospheric mass due to sublimation
and condensation of CO2 at the polar
caps.
Further, seasonal 300-500
km/hr planetary-wide storm fronts (or
sandstorms also exist. It is unlikely
that PAV missions can be sustained
during these
seasonal
storms.
Accordingly, preservation of flight
vehicle (and other) assets in the face
of these weather extremes will be a
key
consideration
for
human
exploration of Mars. Further, in the
case
of
Jupiter,
retrograde
atmospheric wind patterns (on the

order of 500-700 km per hour) may

dictate the mission profile of any
PAV platform used).
Rotor blade icing will likely take on a
whole new meaning for flight on Titan
or the outer, gas-giant planets.

Autonomous System Capability

It
is
currently
beyond
the
demonstrated autonomous system
technology state-of-the art to enable
vertical lift flight in an extraterrestrial
environment.
A
light-weight,
low-power,
computationally intensive, reliable
(radiation tolerant, for example) flight
control and mission computer system
capable of meeting vertical lift PAV
requirements has
yet
to
be
demonstrated. It is crucial to initiate
proof-of-concept demonstrations for
key hardware/software components
for autonomous flight of terrestrial
platforms from which vertical lift
PAV mission performance can be
extrapolated.
Limited use of lander or orbiter assets
should be assumed for guidance,
navigation, and control (GNC) and
mission/flight support.
Onboardsensors and autonomous system
capability should be assumed,
although, such complete vehicle
system autonomy has not been
demonstrated.

Guidance, Navigation, and Control

Unlike terrestrial UAVs, PAVs can
not rely on GPS systems for guidance
and navigation (Ref. 28).

16

 Further, high-precision digital maps

will not likely exist for GNC
(development of such maps is instead
a goal/mission of PAVs).
Onboard
navigation
sensors,
appropriate for an extraterrestrial
environmental for a highly mobile
robotic vehicle, have yet to be
demonstrated. In particular, planetary
atmospheres such as Venus and Titan
can be (nearly) opaque to light in the
visual range; therefore, non-optical
sensors would be required for GNC.
Exotic (as compared to terrestrial
UAVs) types of control actuators or
control strategies may need to be
developed to minimize vehicle weight,
to operate under severe environmental
conditions, and to minimize flight
control processor workload.

Structures and Materials

Ultra-light weight structures will be
essential for vertical lift PAVs
particularly for Mars exploration.
Structures and materials will be
subjected to incredible extremes of
temperature and pressure as well as
being subjected to poorly understood
levels of atmospheric turbulence,
weather conditions, and multicomponent and multiphase (and
potentially
corrosive)
chemical
constituents.

Propulsion
Outside of Earth, there is very little
free oxygen in other planetary
atmospheres.
Therefore, new
propulsion systems will have to be
devised that do not rely on oxygen (or

provide for the onboard storage of

oxygen that had either pre-launch
terrestrial origin or was generated by
chemical in-situ production from the
lander/main base).
Reliability issues must be taken into
account (including auxiliary systems
for
start/restart)
for
current
implementations of mono-propellant
engines such as the Akkerman
hydrazine engine (Ref. 25).
Solar flux availability is greatly
diminished for other planets (in the
case of Venus because of cloud/haze
cover, and in the case of Mars, Titan
and the outer planets because of
distance from the Sun) for solar
energy based propulsion systems.
Average Mars solar flux is only ~43 %
of Earths (Ref. 1).
Nuclear-energy-based (for example,
using RTGs (Refs. 29-30)) electric
motor propulsion is possible, but a
significant weight penalty would be
associated with this approach.
Advanced battery and fuel-cell
technology are propulsion system
possibilities (Ref. 31), but still need to
be matured for space systems.
For the exploration of outer, gas-giant
planets, hydrogen could be drawn in
from the planetary atmosphere,
compressed, mixed with vehiclestored oxygen/oxidizer, and ignited in
an internal combustion engine.
Two-stage systems may be a
possibility.
For example, electric
power generation on a lander platform
with recharging an onboard battery on
the PAV between missions.

Deployment
PAVs
will be subjected
to
considerable constraints regarding

17

mass and volume. This will pose

challenges for all vehicle development
disciplines, but will particularly affect
the means and systems involved in the
vehicle deployment
Vehicle assembly, configuring for
flight, and deployment of PAVs pose
unique challenges compared to
terrestrial aerospace vehicles. New
design
approaches,
mechanical
systems, and structures will need to
be developed for PAVs.
The
advantage of vertical lift PAVs (over
other types of PAVs) is that they can
be assembled (if need be), configured
for flight, and launched from a lander,
with adequate time for deployment;
they will not have to rely on
deployment during entry into the
planets atmosphere.
Reelable, foldable, or telescoping
variable-diameter rotor blades are all
possible candidates for achieving
minimum vehicle
volume
(in
stowed/package form) for integration
into launch and entry vehicles.

vehicles and hybrid

planetary missions.

airships

for

In order to minimize risk and maximize

mission capability and probability of
mission success, it will be necessary to
develop design and simulation software
that will enable rigorous and timely
examination of a large conceptual design
space for PAVs. As a first step, it will
be necessary to adapt
existing
conventional
terrestrial
rotorcraft,
VTOL, and hybrid airship preliminary
design and analysis tools to autonomous
planetary aerial vehicle design.
In
addition, developing specialized tools
tailored for PAVs will be necessary,
since PAV configurations are likely
outside the scope of conventional
rotorcraft, VTOL, and hybrid airship
empirical data. All analyses will have to
draw alternatively on first principles and
varying degrees of analysis rigorousness
in the iterative design cycle process.
For conventional terrestrial rotorcraft,
VTOL, and hybrid airships, mission
profiles and flight/operating conditions
can be defined in a relatively
straightforward manner; this will not be
the case for PAVs.
Limited, and
sometimes only
through indirect
measurements, data will be available for
the planetary environment in which the
vehicles will fly, take-off, and land.
PAV mission profiles will be partially
defined by targets of opportunity
identified only during actual vehicle
operation/exploration in the planetary
environment. Therefore, research will
need to be conducted in integrating
mission and virtual environment
simulation software directly into the
design and vehicle simulation software
package. Vehicle simulation is only as
good as the underlying modeling

An ambitious undertaking such as the

development of PAVs will dictate a
whole new design approach that must
have a high-degree of flexibility and
accuracy to analyze a broad class of
vehicle configurations and planetary
atmospheric model. Further this design
methodology must be predicated on the
use of standardized and integrated
software packages for preliminary design
and analysis, virtual environment, and
flight control and autonomous vehicle
simulation tools that could be applied to
a suite of planetary atmosphere models.
The focus of the PAV conceptual design
and simulation tools would primarily be
on vertical take-off and landing (VTOL)

18

employed.
Uncertainties in mission
definition, planetary environment, and
the vehicle design/analysis characteristics
could result in inaccurate simulation
results
and
mission
feasibility
assessments.
Acceptable vehicle
performance will have to be graded not
on the basis of pilot ratings but other
mission success criteria.

Mission
Requirements

Scie nce Payload

Defi nition and Reqs.

I nitial Vehicle
Co nfiguration
De finition

Planetary Atmos pheric

M odel

Rot or Pe rformance
- Hover & Climb
- Propeller/Pr oprotor Airplane-Mode
(if applicable)
- Forward - Flight Helicopter-Mode

Unique design constraints exist with

respect to the package constraints for the
PAV in the aeroshell, the effect on the
vehicle due to the harsh environment of
space (radiation, vacuum, temperature
extremes), and deployment issues from
the aeroshell (during descent) or lander
(on the planetary surface). Further,
considerable work is required to define
robust strategies and mechanisms for
planetary aerial vehicle deployment,
whether it be for: a single integrated
atmospheric entry and flight vehicle;
PAV high-altitude atmospheric release
from an aeroshell; vertical lift PAV
deployment from a lander; vertical lift
PAV
autonomous
assembly
and
deployment from a lander; or astronautassisted assembly.

Airframe/Vehicle
Aerodynamics
Detailed W eight
Estimates
PAV Stability &
Control
Flight Control & Au tonomous System
M ission/Flight Computer Pe rformance, Power, and Weight
Deployment & Aeroshell Packa ging
Vehicle Delta Performance & Weight
Penalties

Lander Design &

W eight Estimate
Aeroshell Design
We ight & Performance

O rbital Mechanics

Spacecraft Design

Mission Cost

No

Mission
Reqs. Met?

Ye s

Figure 11 is a flow chart summarizing the

preliminary
design process
that
encompasses the multiple disciplines and
unique design constraints/considerations
of vertical lift PAVs.

Detailed Design

Fig. 11 Vertical Lift PAV Preliminary

Design Cycle

Finally, perhaps the greatest challenge

for the aeronautics and rotorcraft
communities will be understanding the
cultural background and technical
requirements of a new type of customer:
the planetary science community.

19

of the planetary scientist. Therefore,

symbiotic robotic systems, with either
fixed-based or mobile assets with surface
locomotion capability, will be an
important capability to develop and
utilize for planetary science missions.
For example, a large, long-range rover
could carry a small vertical lift PAV as a
scout vehicle to map out both routes and
stops for scientific research for the rover.
Alternatively, a large vertical lift PAV
could sling load transport a small rover,
or stationary sensor arrays, to targeted
areas of interest.
Finally, as a third
example, high-altitude, long endurance,
fixed-wing (or hybrid airship) PAVs
could be linked to vertical lift PAVs to
enable/support
mission-planning,
routing, coordination between multiple
vehicles,
and
extended
range
communication without having to rely
solely on orbiters.

Additional Considerations
In order to maximize the science return
from robotic PAVs it may also be
necessary to examine and implement the
development
of
hybrid
vehicles,
symbiotic robotic systems, and/or
overall collections or communities of
robots and astronauts.
It may be that hybrid vehicles will need
to be developed to fully expedite
planetary exploration. One such hybrid
vehicle may combine flight with surface
locomotion capability. Visionaries in the
early twentieth century proposed the
development of vehicles that combined
the features of airplanes and automobiles
for terrestrial personal transportation.
There may be a greater need to develop
such hybrid (flight and surface
locomotion) vehicles for extraterrestrial
applications. Another hybrid vehicle
that might deserve attention from PAVs
designers is a vehicle that combines
rocket propulsion with rotary-wing lift
to optimize overall vehicle performance.
Traditional concepts of rocket and aerial
propulsion may fall by the way-side by
necessity, as will the concepts of
independent/separate surface-locomotion
and aerial vehicles, for extraterrestrial
applications.

Planetary scientists and computer

science and robotics experts are already
collaborating to develop collective
communities of robots to be used for
extended
periods
of
planetary
exploration. Of all the planetary bodies
in the solar system, the Moon and Mars
are unique since one day a sustained
human presence will likely be established
on them. Robotic systems employing
rotary-wing-derived technologies could
act as a community of Astronaut
Agents
for
efficiently
and
comprehensively conducting scientific
exploration.

Symbiotic vehicles/robotic-systems (for

example, a rover transported by and/or
linked to a PAV) will likely require
development to efficiently expedite
planetary exploration. Basically, once a
vertical lift planetary aerial vehicle lands
it has limited ability (less than a couple
of meters at most) to interact with the
planetary surface.
PAV-mounted
robotic arms and similar devices will be
insufficient to meet the long-term needs

Potential for Leveraged, or Spin-Off,

Research and Technology
Why is the Army/Rotorcraft Division
interested in promoting and participating

20

in the design study and, perhaps, the

ultimate development of vertical lift
PAVs? There are several reasons:

vehicles. This paper is just a first step

in that overall process.

PAV
advanced
autonomous
software/hardware technology is also
applicable for terrestrial UAVs;

Specifically, the preliminary discussion

and analyses presented in this paper has
enabled the following initial conclusions
to be drawn:

Technology developed for PAVs

could be applicable to Micro Air
Vehicles (MAVs);

Vertical lift planetary aerial vehicles

could potentially be developed for
Mars, Venus, and Titan;

PAV development will promote a

strong working relationship between
NASA Aeronautics, Space, and
Information Technology programs.

Fixed-wing,
propeller
driven
planetary aerial vehicles (leveraging
rotary-wing technologies) could
potentially be developed not only for
Mars, Venus, and Titan but also for
the outer, gas-giant planets;

Where To Go From Here?

Finally, even planetary bodies that
have tenuous, or nonexistent,
atmospheres could benefit from
rotary-wing related technologies.

How can the rotorcraft community

contribute to the realization of this
vision? First of all, the Army/NASA
Rotorcraft Division at NASA Ames
Research Center intends to continue to
sponsor/perform work in the area of
vertical lift planetary aerial vehicles.
Second, Sikorsky Aircraft is sponsoring
the Year 2000 AHS Student Design
Competition where the topic is a
Martian
autonomous
rotorcraft.
Finally, all other members of the
rotorcraft community both industry
and academia are encouraged to use
their imagination and technical expertise
to expand upon the vision outlined in
this paper.

Vertical lift planetary aerial vehicles if

proven to be feasible -- will be employed
in both purely robotic missions, or as
'astronaut agents' for manned planetary
expeditions. There are, therefore, future
opportunities for the rotorcraft and
vertical lift technical communities to
contribute to NASA solar system
exploration initiatives. In the course of
developing planetary aerial vehicles,
there is considerable spin-off potential to
terrestrial rotorcraft.

Acknowledgments
Concluding Remarks
The support of the NASA Ames
Aerospace Directorate and the Center
Director's Discretionary
Fund
is
gratefully acknowledged. Thanks must
also be given to Mr. George Price and
Mr. Christopher Van Buiten of Sikorsky

Autonomous vertical lift PAVs can

potentially play a vital future role in the
exploration of the solar system.
A
considerable amount of work lies ahead
to establish the feasibility of these

21

Aircraft for their efforts on behalf of the

AHS Internationals Student Design
Competition on the topic of a Martian
Autonomous Rotorcraft for Science
(MARS). Finally, thanks in advance
should be extended to a future generation
of Martian aviators and planetary aerial
vehicle designers who will hopefully be
inspired to make the vision described in
this paper a reality.

8. Abbott, I.H. and Von Doenhoff,

A.E.,
Theory of Wing Sections,
Dover Publications, New York, NY,
1959.
9. Corning, G.,
Supersonic and
Subsonic, CTOL
and
VTOL,
th
Airplane Design, 4 Ed., University
of Maryland, 1986.
10. Hoerner, S.F., Fluid-Dynamic Drag,
Hoerner Fluid Dynamics, Brick
Town, NJ, 1965.

References
1. Lodders, K. and Fegley, Jr., B., The
Planetary Scientists Companion,
Oxford University Press, 1998.

11. Johnson, W.R., Helicopter Theory,

Princeton University Press, 1980.
12. Stepniewski, W.Z. and Keys, C.N. ,
Rotary-Wing Aerodynamics, Dover
Publications, Mineola, NY, 1984.

2. Beatty,
J.K., Peterson,
C.C.,
Chaiken, A., Editors, The New Solar
System, 4th Ed.,
Cambridge
University Press, 1998.

13. Felker, F.F., Results From a Test

of a 2/3-Scale V-22 Rotor and Wing
in the 40- by 80-Foot Wind-Tunnel,
47th Annual Forum of the American
Helicopter Society, Phoenix, AZ,
May 6-8, 1991.

3. Morrison, D., Exploring Planetary

Worlds, Scientific American Library,
No. 45, 1993.
4. Bullock, M.A. and Grinspoon, D.H.,
Global Climate Change on Venus,
Scientific American, Vol. 280, No. 3,
March 1999, pg. 50-57.

14. Gundlach, J.F., Unmanned SolarPowered Hybrid Airships for Mars

Exploration, AIAA 99-0896, 37th
AIAA Aerospace Sciences Meeting
and Exhibit, Reno, NV, January 1114, 1999.

5. Ezell, E.C. and Ezell, L.N. On

Mars: Exploration of the Red Planet,
1958-1978
NASA-SP-4212,
January 1984.

15. Girerd, A.R.,

The Case for a
Robotic Martian Airship, AIAA
97-1460, 1997.

6. White, F.M., Viscous Fluid Flow,

McGraw Hill, 1974, pg. 25-46.

16. Head III, J.W., The 1988-89 Soviet

Phobos Mission, AIAA Paper 86163, The NASA Mars Conference,
San Diego, CA, 1988, pg. 215-240.

7. Patterson, W.B., The Design and

Test of a Human Powered
Helicopter, 42nd Annual Forum of
the American Helicopter Society,
Washington, DC, June 2-4, 1986.

17. Iwata, T., Eto, T., and Kaneko, Y.,

Unmanned Exploration of the Lunar

22

Surface,
18th
International
Symposium on Space Technology
and Science, Kagoshima, Japan, May
1992, pg. 1759-1764.

25. Akkerman, J.W.

Hydrazine
Monopropellent
Reciprocating
Engine Development
NASA
Conference Publication 2081, 13th
Aerospace Mechanisms Conference,
Proceedings of a Symposium held at
Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX,
April 26-27, 1979.

18. Sercel, J.C., Blandino, J.J., and

Wood, K.L., The Ballistic Mars
Hopper An Alternate Mars
Mobility Concept, AIAA Paper
87-1901, 23rd AIAA, SAE, ASME,
and
ASEE
Joint
Propulsion
Conference, San Diego, CA, June 29July 2, 1987.

26. Drees, J.M., Expanding Tiltrotor

Capabilities,
12th European
Rotorcraft Forum, September 22-25,
1986.
27. Rosenstein, H. and Clark, R.,
Aerodynamic Development of the
V-22 Tilt Rotor, 12th European
Rotorcraft Forum, September 22-25,
1986.

19. Smith, Jr., I.S. and Cutts, J.A.

Floating in Space,
Scientific
American, Vol. 281, No. 5,
November 1999, pg. 98-103.
20. Clarke, V.C., Jr. The Ad Hoc Mars
Airplane Science Working Group
NASA CR-158000, November 1978.

28. Sridhar, B. et al. Passive Range

Estimation for Rotorcraft LowAltitude Flight
NASA-TM103897, October 1991.

21. Totah, J.J. and Kinney, D.J.

Simulating
Conceptual
and
Developmental Aircraft AIAA-984161.

29. Mastal, E.F. and Cambell, R.W.,

RTGs The Powering of Ulysses,
ESA (European Space Agency)
Bulletin, No. 63, August 1990, pg.
51-55.

22. Dejarnette, F.R. and Mckay, C.P.,

Mars
Exploration
Advances:
Missions to Mars Mars Base,
AIAA Paper 92-0485, January,
1992.

30. Schock, A., Sankarankandath, V., and

Shirbacheh, M., Requirements and
Designs for Mars Rover RTGs,
Proceedings of the 24th Intersociety
Energy Conversion
Engineering
Conference,
Washington,
DC,
August 1989.

23. Stoker, C.R., The Case for Mars

III: Strategies for Exploration
Technical, A90-16526, January,
1980.

31. Marcoux, L.S. and Dagarin, B.P.,

The Galileo Probe Li/SO2 Battery:
The Safest Battery on Jupiter, The
1982 Goddard Space Flight Center
Battery
Workshop,
published
August 1, 1983, pg. 15-22.

24. Budden, N.A.

and Duke, M.B.
HEDS-Up
Mars
Exploration
Forum
Lunar and Planetary
Institute Report # LPI-Contrib-955,
January, 1998.

23